Thursday, April 01, 2010

According to the Watchtower CD Library, did Jerusalem fall in 607 B.C.E. or 587?

I. 539 is absolute

*** w68 8/15 p. 490 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***

THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E.12 One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. That was concerning the time when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great broke up Belshazzar’s notorious carousal, captured the city of Babylon, and overthrew the Third World Empire. The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India.

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***

It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in man’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.

II. Nabonidus reigned 17 years, beginning in 556-539

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***

On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).

III. Labashi-Marduk reigned 9 months in 556

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.

IV. Neriglissar reigned 4 years from 560-556

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.

V. Evil-merodach reigned 2 years from 562-560

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to show that the Watchtower is in agreement with the fact that 587 is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply to show that by counting back from 539 in using the lengths of each King's reign as provided by the Watchtower, one comes to the date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though it is no secret that the Watchtower believes that secular chronologies are largely unreliable (please see, w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?), they nonetheless have provided the lengths of each of these kings reigns. Thus, it would be safe to assume that unless there are specific qualifications made, the rank-and-file will naturally read the pages of their Watchtower without questioning its details. For instance, when a JW reads:

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

Would not the JW read this quote in assuming that these dates as provided by the Watchtower are the correct dates? If one reads the entire article, there are many dates and years provided without any qualifications. Thus, the JW who is fully entrusting the Watchtower in doing good research will read the length of Neriglissar's reign with the same level of assurance that he reads the date of 607 when it is mentioned in the same article.

But what of Evil-merodach's reign? Is two years correct?

*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***

There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.

As we can see, there is controversy as to whether it was two years, 12 years, or 18 years. Furthermore, the Watchtower asserts that "reliable confirmation of these details is lacking," and, "one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. If such is the case, then why did w65 1/1 p. 29 mention two years for Evil-merodach's reign instead of 18? Or why wasn't there a footnote? Could it be that, though "reliable confirmation" is lacking, the two years is the best estimate in light of the available evidence? It would seem to be so. Furthermore, in w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40, does not the Watchtower list the Kings as well as dates? One can do a search in their Watchtower CD Library for any of the King's lengths of reign. It would seem that according to Watchtower standards, there can be confusion among historians on the length of the king's reign, which means that secular chronologies are no longer reliable. This creates the allusion that the Watchtower "just goes with what the Bible says." What is really the case, is that if a secular document lists a particular length of reign that agrees with Watchtower chronology, then that date is accepted. Just as an example, if there were discrepancies amongst secular records that Nebuchadnezzar's reign wasn't 43 years, would the Watchtower then say, "well, I guess we can't know for sure?" Of course not. The Watchtower tries to do what any historian does: look into the evidence and come up with the best conclusion.

The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified. That is, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk King List, and the Royal Inscriptions all unanimously agree that Evil-merodach's reign was two years. And though one might carry the attitude of "I favor the Bible over secular chronology," this doesn't address the fact that our best available evidence shows that the reign was two years. As far as whether or not this agrees with the Bible, that is another issue.

18 comments:

Stellar investigative apostatechniques my pal.Kudos on having the patience to navigate that WT cd rom to gather the scattered facts as well.More and more people who see these things online have been and are going to be waking up ..:-)

1914 Is the kingpin teaching for the Society. If it fails, everything fails along with it. If Christ didn't return in 1914, he didn't appoint the "Slave" in 1919 if he didn't appoint the slave in 1919 their is no authority structure.Good work on this info Mike.

Simply Google any of these phrases with the quotation marks around them:

"merodach reigned twenty-eight years"

"Nebuchadnezzar the Great, or Nabo"

"From the preceding details, the extreme confusion which prevails among the historians of that period and their subsequent commentators is at once apparent."

You'll quickly see that some historians say 1 year, while others say 2 years, 3 years, 12 years, 18 years, and even 26 years.

While Mike calls this "well-attested," Non-JW historians refer to this as "extreme confusion."

But, Mike hangs on one of the WT's references to Ptolemy's view of 2 years and insists that the WT is suggesting this is correct.

However, what does the WT say about this 2 year period?

"There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. At Borsippa, for instance, were found names of a number of Babylonian kings that do not appear elsewhere." (5/8/72 Awake article - When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?)

The bottom line is this:

1) Historians don't agree on the dates.

2) The WT's position is that these dates are unreliable and can't be trusted.

3) The WT says the 2 years for Evil-M is Ptolemy's view and there's no way to be sure that's correct.

But Mike continues to insist that they find Ptolemy's view to be accurate.

Your argument is fallacious on one big level. It would be the equivalent of saying:

Scholars can't even agree on how John 1:1 should be translated. Some say "God," others say "divine," and some say "a god." Just google it and you'll see the controversies! We therefore can't have a clue on what John 1:1 says!

As Bible students, we have to weigh the arguments not based on how much controversy there is, but on what the best available evidence leads to. This is what we do on all controversial biblical issues and this is what we also do with history.

Next, the two years are not just based on "Ptolemy's" view. You seemed to completely ignore my mention of three historical/archaeological witnesses to Evil-merodach's two year reign. And even within each of these, there are many independent sources to compile the three groups: the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, the Uruk King List, and Royal Inscriptions.

Do the secular chronologies show unreliable testimony? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. We have to weight the evidence rather than dismiss it based on "controversy."

2) shows specific examples that there is controversy and lack of agreement among noted historians.

3) states there is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct.

4) specifically calls out Ptolemy's 2 year view as an example of something we can't be sure of.

5) Explains that other historians think it's 12 years, or even 18 years.

I don't have any problem understanding that they don't view the 2 years as accurate and sure.

On the other hand, your difficulty in understanding such a simple point never ceases to amaze me. But I see this as a common trait among people who identify themselves as "dedicated opposers" of the Watchtower.

Again, you keep asserting that its unreliable. Prove it. Citing controversy amongst historians proves nothing. I can cite controversy among just about anything. But I have displayed several references for supporting the two years, which you have yet to address.

Secondly, I never claimed that the WT ever said that they are "sure" of the two years. Its just that the fact that they mention the 2 instead of the 12 or 18 indicates that they believe 2 to be the most accurate.

If I can cite controversy for all the other lengths of reigns for the kings, does that automatically prove that we can have no idea how long they reigned?

"I have displayed several references for supporting the two years, which you have yet to address."

I have provided multiple references to you that show noted historians see the date as 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 12 years, 18 years, or 26 years. (Josephus, Scaliger, Dr. Hales, Sir Walter Raleigh, Dr. Prideaux, Lightfoot, Ptolemy, Rollen)

I've also provided multiple references of WT materials that shows they have never given any comment that these dates were accurate, sure, probable, or anything but unreliable, questional, and uncertain. That they used 2 years in one article (without a footnote that you're demanding), doesn't change anything about their opinion of the complete unreliability of these dates.

Mike says:

"Secondly, I never claimed that the WT ever said that they are "sure" of the two years."

But just two days ago on his YouTube video he said exactly that. Here's the quote:

"Its just that the fact that they mention the 2 instead of the 12 or 18 indicates that they believe 2 to be the most accurate."

Did they ever say 2 years was "the most accurate?" No, to the contrary, they said:

""There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years."

Where has the WT ever said that the 2 years is "the most accurate?"

Here's what they've said about it:

"the very purpose of the [Ptolemy's] Canon makes absolute dating by means of it impossible.

They've written full articles explaining why the dates are unreliable.

You are simply trying to read something into their position that was never said, and was specifically argued against on multiple occasions.

You are simply misrepresenting their stated position, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that shows you are doing this, you continue to argue.

I'm going to beat this dead horse one last time: again, citing controversy amongst historians says nothing about what is true or false. We are to examine all the data and come to the best possible conclusion.

And yes, as I cited in the blog update, the WT is unsure about the two years. If its just completely and totally up in the air, then can we say the same thing about the other kings? You see, this creates a huge problem for the Watchtower because their chronologies are based on precise details. And if the chronologies for the kings lists are completely and totally up in the air, and we can have no clue what they were, then how can you even be sure about 607? What it boils down to is an "accept the dates that we tell you to." And this is not an off-the-cuff remark. This is Watchtower authority 101. You have to believe anything the Watchtower says, whether its dates like 607 or the length of kings reigns.

Last, you keep mentioning Ptolemy's Canon as if this is the be-all-end all. Why not address the other lines of evidence that I have mentioned? Whether the WT is unsure or not almost becomes irrelevant at this point, because there is just no reason whatsoever to no accept 2 years for Evil-merodach. Can you provide for me just one single reason why assigning two years to him would throw anything off?

Also, I completely retract my statement about "the WT being sure." I completely misspoke on that.

Yes, I am aware of the controversies. And controversies extend to all areas of theology as well, not just history. I think i've said all I can for this.

As far as the king's reigns, the Watchtower seems to give a lot more confidence towards the other reigns, do they not?

I think the 70 years would be a good place to take this conversation towards. It seems that according to you, this is clear and uncontroversial. We'll see how that goes when I make my video on it. Keep in touch.

Mike: "If its just completely and totally up in the air, then can we say the same thing about the other kings? You see, this creates a huge problem for the Watchtower because their chronologies are based on precise details. And if the chronologies for the kings lists are completely and totally up in the air, and we can have no clue what they were, then how can you even be sure about 607?"

Yes, there is also "extreme confusion" in the minds of historians about the other kings:

Mike: "Last, you keep mentioning Ptolemy's Canon as if this is the be-all-end all....Can you provide for me just one single reason why assigning two years to him would throw anything off?"

This is discussed in the 1972 Awake article "When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?

"The 586 B.C.E. date is based primarily on what is known as “Ptolemy’s Canon,” which assigns a total of 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty beginning with Nabopolassar and ending with Nabonidus at the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. According to this Canon, the five kings that ruled during this period were Nabopolassar (21 years), Nebuchadnezzar (43 years), Evil-merodach (2 years), Neriglissar (4 years) and Nabonidus (17 years). In line with the number of years thus assigned to each ruler, Jerusalem’s desolation in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year (nineteenth year if counting from his “accession year”) would fall in 586 B.C.E.—2 Ki. 25:8; Jer. 52:29."

But how dependable is Ptolemy’s Canon?

In his book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Professor E. R. Thiele writes:

“Ptolemy’s canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year’s day were not mentioned.” (Italics ours.)

So the very purpose of the Canon makes absolute dating by means of it impossible.

Also, by assuming the accuracy of these highly debated, unreliable dates, it creates multiple issues that contradict what the Bible says.

Your conclusion from Thiele's quote is absurd. Something doesn't have to be specifically for "historical purposes" to be a reliable historical witness. Furthermore, do you think that the canon is just a bunch of made up stuff?

Apparently, there is something to the canon, since the Babylonian chronicles, king lists, and astronomical texts are in very good agreement all the way from the 8th century to the 1st century.

It would be a pretty amazing thing to claim that these thousands of independent testimonies all happened to get the details wrong with excellent agreement to one another.

Also, what Thiele means by not "giving a complete list" is because only length in years was given, which would exclude Labashi-Marduk. So, in no way does Thiele's quote suggest that the canon is in any way unreliable. If anything, it affirms the reliability and to say that dating is "impossible" through this is completely absurd when we have thousands of other independent testimonies which agree with it.

And no, I don't have any references for anyone who would date other than 539. But then again, scholarly consensus has never stopped JW's from having contrary views from the majority.

I disagree that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned to their land. The 70 years was "for Babylon" (Jeremiah 29:10) in reference to taking "the surrounding nations" and "this land" as their slaves (Jeremiah 25:11). Thus, according to v. 12 the seventy years would end with the punishment of the King of Babylon in 539.

But I don't want to get into this here, so please save your criticism for my future posts when I address the 70 years in more detail.